Hancock v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 202 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CACR11-964 Opinion Delivered CHARLES LEE HANCOCK APPELLANT March 7, 2012 APPEAL FROM THE GRANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, [NO. CR-10-32-1] V. HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Charles Hancock was found guilty of possession of a firearm by certain persons and sentenced to six-and-one-half years imprisonment.1 He argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We are unable to address the merits of this argument, however, as Hancock has submitted a deficient brief. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i)2 provides that the addendum must include, among other things, exhibits that are essential for this court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issue on appeal. Our rules also require the party making the addendum to seek a waiver of the addendum obligation if an exhibit cannot be 1 This sentence was to run consecutive to the time he was already serving. 2 (2011). Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 202 reproduced in the addendum.3 In this case, counsel failed to include the video recording of the police stop in the addendum as required by our rules. Further, he failed to file a motion for waiver of the addendum obligation. Additionally, we are troubled that the brief s argument lacks development.4 We direct counsel to file a substituted brief that complies with our rules.5 The substituted brief, abstract, and addendum shall be due fifteen days from the date of this order. We remind counsel that the examples we have noted are not to be taken as an exhaustive list of deficiencies. Counsel should carefully review the rules to ensure that no other deficiencies exist. Failure to file a compliant brief within fifteen days could result in the trial court s decision being summarily affirmed for noncompliance with our rules.6 Rebriefing ordered. HART and HOOFMAN, JJ., agree. 3 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(ii). 4 Counsel has failed to set out the standard of review with respect to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and the elements of the offense charged. 5 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). 6 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(c)(2). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
